Moral Education for Young People in Singapore: Philosophy, Policy and Prospects

Moral Education for Young People in Singapore: Philosophy, Policy and Prospects Charlene TAN Yew-Leong WONG Associate Professor, Policy and Leadership Studies Academic Group, National Institute of Education, Nanyang Technological University, Singapore Teaching Fellow, Policy and Leadership Studies Academic Group, National Institute of Education, Nanyang Technological University, Singapore Moral education in Singapore is underpinned by a communitarian ideology that emphasises the centrality of the community and the importance of social harmony. We explain how this communitarian philosophy is promoted through the subjects Civics and Moral Education (in primary and secondary schools) and Civics (in pre-university institutions), and show that this emphasis has inadvertently resulted in a neglect of the personal moral development of young people in Singapore. We maintain that more needs to be done to encourage young people to critically reflect on, construct, internalise and apply their own moral values both in and beyond the classroom. In the final section of the article, we explore the prospects for doing this in a way that is consistent with a communitarian outlook. Keywords: moral education; communitarianism; personal moral development Singapore is a highly cosmopolitan citystate, with a diverse population. Foreigners (including both permanent residents and nonresidents) from Europe, the Americas, Africa, Oceania and the other parts of Asia form about 36% of Singapore s population of 4.9-million Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Charlene TAN, Policy and Leadership Studies Academic Group, National Institute of Education, 1 Nanyang Walk, Singapore 637616, Singapore; email: charlene.tan@nie.edu.sg Journal of Youth Studies July 2010 Vol. 13 No. 2 (Serial No. 26) 2010 The Hong Kong Federation of Youth Groups 89

people. Of the residents (Singapore citizens and permanent residents), 72.4% are Chinese, 13.4% are Malay, 9.2% are Indians and 3.2% are Eurasians, Arabs or members of other ethnic minorities. Cutting across these different ethnic groupings and nationalities are a variety of cultural and religious practices. No single demographic group is truly homogenous. Singapore is also one of the most densely populated countries in the world (7,022 persons per square kilometre). (See Singapore Department of Statistics, 2009.) With this amount of diversity co-existing in such close quarters, social harmony becomes extremely vital in maintaining social and political stability and ensuring generally uninterrupted economic growth and prosperity in the country. The presence of social harmony in turn depends on the ability of Singaporeans to consistently make morally appropriate decisions in an environment where they are constantly exposed to myriad influences and an overwhelming amount of information from other parts of the world. Acutely aware of this, the Singapore government makes the teaching of moral values a key feature of the school curriculum. Moral education is explicitly taught in Singapore schools through the compulsory subjects Civics and Moral Education (CME) at the primary and secondary levels and Civics at the preuniversity level. This article critically discusses the philosophy, policy and prospects of moral education for young people in Singapore. But what is moral education? What should we teach in moral education? How should we teach it? The answers to these questions will provide us with a basis for evaluating Singapore s moral education. What is Moral Education? It seems plain that the subject-matter of moral education is morality: it seeks to nurture in young people a set of beliefs and values about right and wrong, good and bad, justice and injustice, fairness and unfairness, etc. But what specific beliefs and values are we supposed to nurture in our young people? It is important that we get this right, because our moral beliefs and values guide the way we live our lives they determine the standards of acceptability and admiration in action, thought and emotional response. Many people today are uncomfortable with the idea of a universal standard of morality. Motivating this discomfort is the pluralistic notion that our particular way of doing things may not be the only way that is right. (This is an acknowledgement of the possibility that there may be other value systems that are just as valid as ours, not the relativist view that all value systems are equally valid.) Nevertheless, there seems to be a core set of moral beliefs and values that are shared by almost all human beings. For example, very few would challenge the claim that acts of murder, theft, rape, slavery, genocide, torture or systematic racial discrimination are wrong and should therefore be prohibited. Most people would also agree that freedom is worth pursuing and protecting, and that respect, responsibility, resilience, honesty and integrity are worth cultivating. This gives us an initial list of specific moral beliefs and values to include in the curriculum for moral education. However, a moral education that seeks to nurture in young people just this core set of moral beliefs and values is inadequate. Such a moral 90

education will leave young people in a state of confusion when confronted with moral controversies, moral dilemmas and novel moral situations. Simply acquiring a set of moral beliefs and values will not tell us what we ought to do in situations where the morality of the options is unclear or complex, where some of the values we subscribe to conflict with one another, or where we are not even sure what all the relevant moral questions are. A good moral education must not only nurture in young people a core set of moral beliefs and values, but also teach them how to apply these beliefs and values in critical and creative ways to solve the real moral problems that they encounter. In short, a good moral education should teach morality as well as moral reasoning skills. (For detailed arguments for this view, see Law, 2009; Lipman, 2003.) With this in mind, let us now turn to moral education in Singapore. Philosophy of Moral Education in Singapore Moral education in Singapore is underpinned by a communitarian ideology. Communitarianism may be characterised by the following three claims (see Bell, 2009): 1. Standards of morality are located in the cultural factors of particular societies, in the interpretive framework particular societies use to understand and navigate the world. (This is not the relativist view that the morality of an act depends on whether that act is regarded as good or bad by particular societies or cultures, but rather the view that the morality of an act depends on how the act is interpreted or described by particular societies or cultures. See Bell, 2009). 2. The self is essentially a social entity; the notion of the self as something that is separate from the social roles one plays is meaningless. 3. The well-being of the community takes precedence over the interests of the individual. A number of writers have pointed out that an Asian version of communitarianism exists in East and Southeast Asian countries, like China, South Korea, Malaysia, Indonesia and Singapore (e.g. Bell, 2006, 2009; Chua, 1995, 2005; Kennedy, 2004; Lee, Grossman, Kennedy & Fairbrother, 2004; Tan, 2008a). East and Southeast Asian communitarianism emphasises the centrality of the community in the formation of the individual s values, behaviour and identity. The concept of community is premised on the principle of social harmony, which features prominently in East and Southeast Asian societies and is reflected in citizenship education across these parts of the world (see Chew, 1998; Cummings, 2001; Thomas, 2002; Lee et al., 2004; Ahmad, 2004; Roh, 2004). In his research on values education in the Pacific Basin, Cummings (2001) found that the concerns common to East and Southeast Asian educational leaders are also collectivist in nature; he gave the following examples: providing a guide for behaviour in daily life, encouraging civic-consciousness, fostering an appreciation for the heritage and strengthening national identity, and fostering family values. It is therefore not uncommon to find East and Southeast Asian leaders exhorting their fellow 91

citizens to sacrifice a personal right or a civil or political liberty so as to fulfil their duties and responsibilities towards their family and community in cases of conflict between personal interests and social or national interests (Bell, 2006, 2009; Kennedy, 2004; Tan, 2008a). In return, East and Southeast Asian governments generally see themselves as having an obligation to provide the social and economic conditions that facilitate the fulfilment of these duties and responsibilities (Bell, 2009). Thus, in China, Japan and Singapore, it is mandatory by law for children to provide financial support for their elderly parents; in Korea and Hong Kong, the state provides tax and housing benefits to make it easier for children to care for their elderly parents at home. In Singapore, communitarianism further takes on a paternalistic flavour. It is therefore no surprise that the Singapore government has prescribed the specific Asian values that undergird the communitarian ideology. These values were introduced officially in 1991 as a national ideology under the heading Our Shared Values (MOE, 2006a, pp. 10-11): Our Shared Values: Nation before community and society before self Family as the basic unit of society Community support and respect for the individual Consensus, not conflict Racial and religious harmony The communitarian values stated here bear semblance to Confucian teachings, with its accent on the nation, community, society and family, coupled with the key values of consensus and harmony. Chua (1995) commented that the Singapore government privileges Confucianism as a good foundation for propagating Asian values among the younger generation. The Confucian influence can be further seen in the values listed under the heading Singapore Family Values in MOE (2006a, p. 9): love, care and concern, mutual respect, filial responsibility, commitment, and communication. The reference to filial responsibility points unequivocally to the Confucian teaching of filial piety. Besides Our Shared Values and Singapore Family Values, communitarianism in Singapore is also promoted through Singapore 21 Vision : Every Singaporean matters Opportunities for all Strong families: our foundation and our future The Singapore heartbeat Active citizens: making a difference to society The Singapore 21 Vision was launched in 1997 by then Prime Minister Goh Chok Tong. It aims to strengthen the heartware of Singapore in the 21st century the intangibles of society like social cohesion, political stability and the collective will, values and attitudes of Singaporeans (Singapore 21 Report, http:// www.singapore21.org.sg/menu_s21report.html). The final platform for the Singapore Ministry of Education to transmit communitarian values is citizenship education, known locally as National Education. These are its key 92

messages: Singapore is our homeland; this is where we belong. We must preserve racial and religious harmony. We must uphold meritocracy and incorruptibility. No one owes Singapore a living. through these two subjects. In fact, moral beliefs and values are inculcated in Singapore schools both directly and indirectly through the school ethos and various academic and non-academic programmes. We have chosen to focus on these two subjects because we are interested in the manner in which the state ideology is translated into moral education policy through the official syllabi. We must ourselves defend Singapore. We have confidence in our future. Since 1997, National Education (NE) has been implemented in all Singapore schools. NE aims to develop in all Singaporeans national cohesion, the instinct for survival and confidence in the future. It is infused into the formal curriculum through subjects such as Civics and Moral Education (CME), Social Studies and History, and through sports and enrichment programmes. Again, we see here the strong presence of Confucian values in the emphasis on strong families as the foundation of society and the key to social cohesion, racial and religious harmony and nation-building. The emphasis on citizenship in the communitarian philosophy of East and Southeast Asian countries explains why moral education in these regions tends to combine and conflate citizenship and morality (see the essays in Grossman, Lee & Kennedy, 2008). Such is the case in Singapore. In the next section, we analyse the syllabi for CME for secondary students (aged 13-16) and Civics for preuniversity students (aged 17-19) to see how communitarianism is promoted in these subjects. It should be noted that we are not suggesting here that moral values are transmitted only Moral Education Policy in Singapore Schools Civics and Moral Education (CME) for Secondary Students CME aims to nurture a person of good character, one who is caring and acts responsibly towards the self, family, community, nation and world (MOE, 2006b). The syllabus adopts Lickona s (1992) framework of moral knowing, moral feeling and moral action in the development of a morally upright individual. Moral knowing refers to the students knowledge of what is right and their ability to define good values, formulate sound moral principles and explain what constitutes good character and right conduct (MOE, 2006b, p. 5). Moral knowing thus concerns the cognitive aspect of morality. Moral feeling refers to the affective aspect of morality. It involves a conviction and motivation to uphold and apply good values while considering the consequences of our actions and the feelings of others. Moral action refers to doing the right thing that proceeds from moral knowing and moral feeling. The syllabus emphasises the need for students to develop such skills as moral 93

reasoning, critical thinking, responsible decision making, problem-solving and effective communication, and be given many and varied opportunities to put good values into practice (MOE, 2006b, p.5). The designers of CME identify six core values as the foundation for good character: respect, responsibility, integrity, care, resilience and harmony (see Table 1 for their official definitions). That the CME syllabus is designed to support communitarian values is evident in its statement that these six values complement and reinforce Our Shared Values, the Singapore Family Values, the Singapore 21 Vision and the National Education messages (MOE, 2006b, p. 7). The syllabus document suggests a number of approaches that schools may adopt when teaching CME: The Cultural Transmission Approach, which seeks to impart desirable social and cultural values. The Consideration Approach (Perspective- Taking), which aims to develop an empathic and caring personality. The Modified Values Clarification Approach (Responsible Decision Making), which hopes to help students clarify their values through examining their personal feelings and behaviour patterns. The Cognitive Development Approach (Moral Reasoning), which is based on Kohlberg s theory about students progress from a selfcentred perspective to a higher stage of moral development. The Narrative Approach (Story-Telling), which helps students to clarify their values through the process of story-telling and reflection. The Action Learning Approach, in which students are encouraged to engage in projects in the school and in the community. Civics for Pre-University Students The Civics syllabus for pre-university students aligns itself to the CME syllabus for primary and secondary students. Identifying Making a Difference as its central theme, the Civics syllabus aims to nurture students to play an active role in helping to improve the quality of civic life in the community and to take the lead in service to others (MOE, 2006a, p. 1). Specifically, students should learn about the importance of active citizenship through service to others, the necessity for everyone to take an interest in the needs of the community and the belief that everyone can play a role in effecting positive changes in society in their own way (MOE, 2006a, p. 1). Four main ideas come under the theme of Making a Difference (MOE, 2006a, p.2): Our Growth and Development: Taking a proactive approach to becoming a leader in service. Our Families and Communities: Leaders serve to meet the needs of the people and the community. People Who Inspire Change: Everyone can play a part by leading in service. Singapore Our Future: Everyone can lead in making Singapore unique. The Civics syllabus recommends an inquiry-based teaching approach, with specific discussion questions designed to enable students to learn more about the community they 94

live in, reflect on the meaning of service in leadership and recognise their roles in the community they live in, and to enable teachers to provoke thinking and discussion among students (MOE, 2006a, p. 4). The syllabus adds that process-based approaches are also useful in helping students reflect on, inquire into and internalise the values of good leadership. The syllabus includes a practical component that involves students in service-learning projects that aim to meet the real needs of the community. A Critique of Moral Education in Singapore Three comments can be made about moral education in Singapore schools. First, the overarching objective of moral education in Singapore is the inculcation of communitarian values for the purpose of nation-building. The communitarian thrust in the CME syllabus is clearly seen in the number of topics devoted to the community (26) as compared to the number of topics devoted to the self (11) (see Table 1). The slant towards communitarian values is even more apparent at the pre-university level, where the words moral education have been dropped from the name of the subject. Although the nurturing of moral beliefs and values is still going on at the pre-university level, the emphasis is on exhorting students to translate those beliefs and values into action by serving the needs of the community and nation, and to lead others in performing such services. Clearly, the primary purpose of moral education in Singapore is citizenship training; students are inculcated with national values for the purpose of economic and political socialisation (Chew, 1998; Tan & Chew, 2004). Second, although a number of teaching approaches have been suggested in the CME and Civics syllabi, and schools have the autonomy to select the approaches that best meet their needs, it appears that the Cultural Transmission Approach is privileged as it lends itself most naturally to the communitarian ideology. This approach emphasises the inculcation of desirable values which are upheld by our society and are also significant in our cultural heritage (MOE, 2006b, p. 8). The desirable values referred to here are those stated under the headings Our Shared Values, Singapore Family Values, Singapore 21 Vision, and National Education (see above). Although the CME and Civics syllabi claim that moral knowing requires the students to define good values, formulate sound moral principles and explain what constitutes good character and right conduct (MOE, 2006b, p. 5), these values, principles and definitions of good character and right conduct have already been decided for the students. The students are not invited to think through and construct their own understandings of what is right, sound and good. While this sidesteps the worry that the students may end up with moral beliefs and values that are wrong or inconsistent with communitarian views, it does mean that students do not have a chance to develop the habits and skills of moral reasoning, critical thinking, responsible decision making and problem-solving when they are taught these communitarian values and principles in the early stages of their moral education. Therefore, students may find it difficult to engage in higherorder thinking when asked to consider moral 95

Value Topics that focus on self Topics that focus on others (friends, family, community, nation and world) Respect Definition: A person demonstrates respect when he believes in his own self-worth and the intrinsic worth of all people. Respect for self (lower secondary) Standing up to peer pressure Respect for self (upper secondary) Respecting others Respecting our homeland Respect for the beliefs and traditions of others Respect for the law and fundamental liberties Respect for life and nature Responsibility Definition: A person who is responsible recognises that he has a duty to himself, his family, community, nation and the world, and fulfils his responsibilities with love and commitment. Responsibility to myself Responsible decision making Preparing for my future financial needs Family roles and duties Being a team player Being responsible members of the community Dating, marriage and parenting Being an active citizen Practising responsibility in dealing with ethical issues in the life sciences Integrity Definition: A person of integrity upholds ethical principles and has the moral courage to stand up for what is right. Being a person of integrity Practising integrity in all spheres in our lives (lower secondary) Practising integrity in all spheres in our lives (upper secondary) 96

Value Topics that focus on self Topics that focus on others (friends, family, community, nation and world) Care Definition: A person who is caring acts with kindness and compassion. He contributes to the betterment of the community and the world. Caring for my family Caring for my friends Caring for the schools Caring for the community Caring for the nation Being a caring member of the global community Resilience Definition: A person who is resilient has emotional strength and perseveres in the face of challenges. He manifests courage, optimism, adaptability and resourcefulness. Being resilient in the face of challenges Resilience in the family Being a resilient citizen Being a resilient nation Harmony Definition: A person who values harmony maintains good relationships and promotes social togetherness. He appreciates the unity and diversity of a multicultural society. Inner harmony Being happy my values and attitudes Family harmony Relating to others Harmony in the community Living in harmony with our environment Promoting peace and stability in the nation and the world Total number of topics 11 26 97

controversies, moral dilemmas and new moral situations: either they lack confidence in performing these higher-order thinking skills, or they have become so pessimistic about the prospect of alternative views being given a fair hearing that they do not bother to participate even if they could perform these skills. If one wonders why young people in Singapore have become increasingly apathetic towards social and political issues, one needs look no further for a reason. Third, there is an underlying tension between the Cognitive Development Approach recommended in the moral education syllabi and the dominant official discourse of communitarianism in Singapore. The Cognitive Development Approach is based on Kohlberg s theory of moral development for students to progress from a self-centred perspective to a higher stage of moral development. According to Kohlberg, children proceed from unquestioned obedience (Stage 1) to what s-in-it-for-me fairness (Stage 2), interpersonal conformity (Stage 3), responsibility to the system (Stage 4) and finally principled conscience (Stage 5) as young adults. Based on this framework, the Singapore moral education syllabi, with its focus on communitarian ideology, appear to stop at Stage 4, with no progression to Stage 5. A person at Stage 4 believes that one should fulfil his or her responsibilities to the social or value system the person feels a part of, keep the system from falling apart and maintain self-respect as someone who meets his or her obligations (Lickona, 1994). But Lickona, echoing Kohlberg, argues that teenagers should be encouraged to proceed to Stage 5 by showing the greatest possible respect for the rights and dignity of every individual and supporting a system that protects human rights; their conscience should oblige them to act in accordance with the principle of respect for all human beings. Lickona (1994) elaborates: Stage 5 also has a strong social conscience, based on the moral principle of respect for individual persons. That principle enables Stage 5 thinkers to mentally stand outside their social system and ask, Are things as good as they ought to be? Is justice being served? Are individual human rights being fully protected? Is there the greatest good for the greatest number? And as I go about my personal life, do I show respect for the rights and dignity of all the individuals I deal with? (p. 15) If Kohlberg is right, then what Singapore students need is to progress from considering the good of community and preserving the rules of society to authentic moral motivation and reasoning, guided by abstract moral ideals rather than mere societal rules (Tan, 2008b). Tan and Chew (2004) first put forward this suggestion when they analysed the previous incarnation of the CME syllabus for primary and secondary levels. They observed then that while children are encouraged to progress from self-regarding motives to a greater awareness of communal interests, the syllabus makes no attempt to move the students onto the level characterised by authentic moral motivation. The revision of the CME syllabus in 2006 did not address this problem. Commenting more than a decade ago that moral values are seen mainly as instruments for forging national unity and maintaining national identity in Singapore, Tan (1994) advocated that students should possess the intrinsic reverence for the moral life and appreciate the intrinsic 98

categorical force of morality based on a metaphysical and religious world-view (p. 66). Gopinathan (1980) averred that moral education in Singapore lacked the humanizing effect of moral education for the individual, its integral place in a conception of education as a liberating and self-fulfilling process (p. 178). Although the comment was made twenty years ago, it still rings true today. We should clarify that our main concern here is not that moral education in Singapore is largely focused on nurturing communitarian values and attitudes in our young people. After all, it is hard to object to the inclusion of the values of respect, responsibility, integrity, care, resilience and harmony among the core set of moral values that human beings generally subscribe to. It is also hard to argue against the importance of communal interests. Even societies that have championed individualism and liberalism are experiencing a shift towards placing greater emphasis on communal interests (see Bell, 2009; Law, 2007). At least one of the authors of this paper believes that communitarianism may in fact be the most suitable moral, social and political framework for a country like Singapore, given its demographic, geographic and economic characteristics. Rather, our chief concern is with the way communitarian values and attitudes are taught in schools. Earlier, we discussed the features of a good moral education: it should teach morality as well as moral reasoning skills. Moral education in Singapore achieves the former reasonably well, but, in our view, falls short with the latter. The question is whether it is in fact possible to accommodate the teaching of moral reasoning skills, leading to independent moral development and authentic moral motivation and selfactualisation, within a communitarian framework. We discuss this question briefly in the final section of this paper. Personal Moral Development in a Communitarian System: Prospects The Singapore government is a paternalistic one. It adopts the stance that it knows what is in the best interest of the people it governs better than the people themselves do, which gives the government the moral authority to make decisions on the people s behalf, even when the decisions are contrary to the people s wishes. However, it would be wrong to think that there is no personal freedom in the Singaporean society. While the Singapore government expects itself to be obeyed, it has also created forums for citizens to question and provide feedback on various social issues, and sometimes the suggestions received do get adopted. Discussions of a more political nature are tolerated when they take place on the fringes, but are tightly controlled in mainstream press. Direct public challenges to government policies, however, often result in severe repercussions for the challenger. Whether intended or not, these actions send to the community at large the message that politics is a dangerous game for those who have not been specially chosen by the leaders of the ruling party, and so one should stick to one s own private affairs. Meanwhile, schools are reminded to discourage students from adopting views and attitudes that are inconsistent with those stated in the moral education syllabi and those publicly endorsed by the government. 99

The reluctance of the Singapore government to allow open debate on issues with deep social and political ramifications, and the swiftness with which it censures those whom it deems to have crossed the line have created a people who is generally apathetic towards important social and political issues. The predominant attitude among the population is that the government will take care of these issues, that it neither needs nor wants our opinions on them. So, ironically, the version of communitarianism practiced in Singapore and transmitted through moral education lessons in schools has resulted in a general detachment from the community at large. Our view is that communitarian goals do not always conflict with individual rights and freedom; in some instances, they can co-exist and complement each other. In the case of Singapore, if the objective is to engender greater attachment to the community at large and encourage greater participation in service to communal needs, then providing a framework within which citizens can genuinely engage one another and the government in public debate about social and political issues without fear of retaliation and without the suspicion that all the talk will ultimately make no difference (because the decision has already been made by the government) is an important first step. (Bell, 2009 expresses a similar view.) The provision of this framework can begin in schools via moral education lessons. Of course, it makes sense for schools to nudge students towards a core set of moral beliefs and values that constitutes the norms of the society. A society must have shared values to be functional. There are plausible arguments in favour of communitarianism and against systems that allow for a great deal of personal freedom (see Bell, 2006, 2009; Blackburn, 2001; Sandel, 2009). But there is no principled reason why students cannot be inducted into a communitarian moral system through a moral education that invites students to examine and debate about competing moral values and systems (see Law, 2007). In fact, a moral education that requires students to actively consider the arguments for and against the adoption of certain moral beliefs or values before constructing their own moral system is more likely to produce students who understand in a deep way why the beliefs and values they have adopted are good and true, and therefore become more committed and resilient in upholding them in practice. A crucial caveat to note here is that a moral education that encourages students to participate in critical moral reasoning is not one that permits them to adopt any belief or value they like. Critical reasoning is governed by rules, so a piece of reasoning is either good or bad. Any moral choice that a student makes must be supported by good reasoning. It is extremely difficult to construct a good argument in support of a wrong belief or value (like It is good to rob little old ladies or hypocrisy). The advantage of a moral education that requires students to think critically about morality lies in its potential to genuinely convince students to adopt the right beliefs and values. How then do we facilitate critical moral reasoning in a moral education classroom? Law (2007) and Lipman (2003) offer some excellent suggestions. Stories involving children debating with one another about complex moral issues (e.g. Lipman, 1983) provide good entry points 100

to bring younger students into moral discussions. Thought experiments involving moral scenarios are also powerful tools to engage students in moral reasoning. Finally, social innovation projects that require students to tackle and solve a real social problem, such as those conducted by the Riverside School in India (http://www. schoolriverside.com/), provide an excellent platform for students to acquire a deep understanding of real social issues, construct moral beliefs and values related to these issues, use their critical and creative thinking skills to solve real-world problems, and develop a genuine concern for the needs of the community. Conclusion What we are recommending here nurturing moral beliefs and values in young people through a critical cognitive engagement with moral issues requires, in the case of Singapore, a shift in the mindset of moral education teachers and government leaders. The obstacle, as we have pointed out, is not communitarianism, but the reluctance on the part of the government to allow genuine public debate on issues that have significant social and political ramifications. We are convinced that a moral education of the form recommended here will engender a greater commitment to communal values and interests among young people. References Ahmad, A. (2004). The making of a good citizen in Malaysia: Does history education play a role? In W. O. Lee, D. L. Grossman, K. J. Kennedy & G. P. Fairbrother (Eds.), Citizenship education in Asia and the Pacific: Concepts and issues (pp. 195-211). Hong Kong: Comparative Education research Centre, The University of Hong Kong. Bell, D. (2006). Beyond liberal democracy: Political thinking for an East Asian context. Princeton: Princeton University Press. Bell, D. (2009). Communitarianism. In E. N. Zalta (Ed.), The stanford encyclopedia of philosophy (spring 2009 edition). Retrieved April 30, 2010, from http:// plato.stanford.edu/archives/spr2009/entries/ communitarianism/ Blackburn, S. (2001). Being good: A short introduction. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Chew, J. O. A. (1998). Civics and moral education in Singapore: Lessons for citizenship education? Journal of Moral Education, 27(4), 505-524. Chua, B. H. (1995). Communitarian ideology and democracy in Singapore. London: Routledge. Chua, B. H. (2005). The cost of membership in ascribed community. In W. Kymlicka & B. He (Eds.), Multiculturalism in Asia (pp. 170-195). Oxford: Oxford University Press. Cummings, W. K. (2001). The future of values education in the Pacific Basin. In W. K. Cummings, M. T. Tatto & J. Hawkins (Eds.), Values education for dynamic societies: Individualism or collectivism? (pp. 277-290). Hong Kong: Comparative Education research Centre, The University of Hong Kong. Gopinathan, S. (1980). Moral education in a plural society: a Singapore case study. International Review of Education 26(2), 171-185. Grossman, D. L., Lee, W. O. & Kennedy, K. J. (Eds.). (2008). Citizenship curriculum in Asia and the Pacific. Hong Kong: Comparative Education Research Centre, The University of Hong Kong. Kennedy, K. J. (2004). Searching for citizenship values in an uncertain global environment. In W. O. Lee, D. 101

L. Grossman, K. J. Kennedy & G. P. Fairbrother (Eds.), Citizenship education in Asia and the Pacific: Concepts and issues (pp. 9-24). Hong Kong: Comparative Education Research Centre, The University of Hong Kong. Law, S. (2007). The war for children s minds. London: Routledge. Lee, W. O., Grossman, D. L., Kennedy, K. J. & Fairbrother, G. P. (Eds.). (2004). Citizenship education in Asia and the Pacific: Concepts and issues. Hong Kong: Comparative Education Research Centre, The University of Hong Kong. Lickona, T. (1992). Educating for character: How our schools can teach respect and responsibility. New York: Bantam Books. Lickona, T. (1994). Raising good children. New York: Bantam Books. Lipman, M. (1983). Lisa (2nd ed.). New Jersey: Institute for the Advancement of Philosophy for Children, Montclair State College. Lipman, M. (2003). Thinking in education (2nd ed.). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Ministry of Education. (2006a). Revised pre-university civics syllabus. Singapore: Ministry of Education. Ministry of Education (2006b). Civics and moral education syllabus: Secondary 2007. Singapore: Ministry of Education. Roh, Y. R. (2004). Values education in the global information age in South Korea and Singapore. In W. O. Lee, D. L. Grossman, K. J. Kenney & G. P. Fairbrother (Eds.), Citizenship education in Asia and the Pacific: Concepts and issues (pp. 257-274). Hong Kong: Comparative Education Research Centre, The University of Hong Kong. Singapore Department of Statistics. (2009). Population trends 2009. Retrieved April 30, 2010 from www. singstat.gov.sg/pubn/popn/population2009.pdf. Singapore: Singapore Department of Statistics, Ministry of Trade and Industry. Tan, C. (2005). Driven by pragmatism: issues and challenges in an ability-driven education. In Tan, J. & Ng, P. T. (Eds.), Shaping Singapore s future: Thinking schools, learning nation (pp. 5-21). Singapore: Prentice Hall. Tan, C. (2008a). Creating good citizens and maintaining religious harmony in Singapore. British Journal of Religious Education, 30(2), 133-142. Tan, C. (2008b). From moral values to citizenship education: the teaching of religion in Singapore schools. In Lai, A. E. (Ed.), Religious diversity in Singapore (pp. 321-341). Singapore: ISEAS & IPS. Tan, T. W. (1994). Moral education in Singapore: a critical appraisal. Journal of Moral Education, 23(1), 61-73. Tan, T. W. & Chew, L. C. (2004). Moral and citizenship education as statecraft in Singapore: a curriculum critique. Journal of Moral Education, 33(4), 597-606. Thomas, E. (2002). Values and citizenship: Crosscultural challenges for school and society in the Asian Pacific Rim. In M. Schweisfurth, L. Davies & C. Harber (Eds.), Learning democracy and citizenship: International experiences (pp. 241-254). Oxford: Symposium Books. Sandel, M. J. (2009). Justice: What s the right thing to do? New York: Farrar, Straus & Giroux. 102